SynthesisOral and maxillofacial surgery2026
Autologous bone grafts versus alloplastic implants for orbital floor reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe choice of reconstructive material for orbital floor fractures remains a subject of debate. While autologous bone has historically been considered the "gold standard," alloplastic implants offer potential advantages in reducing surgical morbidity. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of autologous bone grafts versus alloplastic implants in orbital floor reconstruction.
methodsA systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD420251140583). Electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library) were searched from inception to August 2025. Randomized controlled trials and comparative cohort studies evaluating functional outcomes (diplopia, enophthalmos) and complications (ectropion, infection, malposition) were included. Data were synthesized using a random-effects model, with risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated.
resultsTwenty studies comprising 2,119 patients were included. Alloplastic implants demonstrated statistically significant superiority in periocular safety, with a reduced risk of postoperative ectropion compared to autologous grafts (RR = 2.245; p = 0.020). In an exploratory sensitivity analysis excluding one outlier study, autologous grafts were associated with a significantly higher risk of implant malposition (RR = 2.074; p = 0.004). Autologous reconstruction was associated with a strong trend toward increased postoperative pain (p = 0.052) and inherent donor-site morbidity. No statistically significant differences were observed regarding infection (p = 0.402), enophthalmos (p = 0.201), or diplopia (p = 0.221).
conclusionAlloplastic implants were associated with a lower risk of ectropion and implant malposition, with functional outcomes statistically comparable to autologous bone. Given the elimination of donor-site morbidity, alloplastic biomaterials represent a safe and effective alternative for orbital floor reconstruction; however, the predominance of retrospective, heterogeneous studies in the current evidence base means these findings should inform, rather than replace, individualized surgical decision-making pending further high-quality randomized trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42690464What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.